Thoughts on the Definition of Magic

 

Recently, someone proposed that the specific definition that Aleister Crowley gave to magic in his work “Magic In Theory and Practice” did more harm than good regarding how magic is worked today. While I have attempted to define magic in my very first book, “Disciple’s Guide to Ritual Magick,” I saw that it lacked a certain clarity that I now possess. When I saw this statement on Face Book and the resultant conversation, my immediate thoughts were to agree and also disagree. Crowley wrote his thesis and defined magic in his book written in the late 1920's, and that was nearly 100 years ago. Is anything still absolutely relevant after that length of time? While I liked Crowley’s book “Magic In Theory and Practice”, I also found it to be very complex and not particularly easy to read.

My basic opinion is that Crowley was very much a part of the evolution of magic, and brought it from the 19th century to the 20th century. He further clarified and gave an elaborate but consistent definition to the word magic. He also used the spelling “magick” to differentiate it from the common magic of prestidigitation and causing illusion through trickery. I also adopted this spelling for a while, but found that it didn’t lend itself to referring to practitioners of magic as “magickians.” I have also come to believe that stage magic is just as much a form of magic, and that in the previous age that were considered part of the regimen of the art of magic.

Let’s look at what Crowley had to say about magic and how he defined it. This is the quote that has been proposed as the stumbling block for magicians today.

“Magick is the art and science of causing change in conformity with will.”

And also, the corollary definition, which is: 

“ANY required Change may be effected by application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner through the proper medium to the proper object.”

This sounds like a proper scientific theory, although it is so obviously a truth that it probably doesn’t need to be proven empirically. Of course such a set of definitions would not exclude any number of mundane activities and therefore, could not differentiate them from magic. For instance, if I have an objective, such as finding and getting a new job, or looking for a significant other, I could use magic to aid in this work, but I could use regular mundane actions to do it as well. In fact if I were to engage in either of these pursuits and used magic to aid me, I would also need to engage in the associated mundane activities to ensure success. The purpose of combining mundane steps with magical ones is to bend the laws of probability for something to happen. I doubt that such a pursuit of material objects could be achieved by working magic alone. 

That being said, it would seem that Crowley’s definition of magic is too general to be useful, but behind it are some very thoughtful clues as to how a successful magical operation could be pursued. This is the methodology of applying some kind of personal force through the correct medium or link to a given object to influence a probable outcome. That would seem to aptly define a basic operation using magic to achieve a material outcome, with the caveat that the proper medium is the all-important magical link. Crowley goes on to define what a magical link is, and I think that this was an important factor in defining magic. It just doesn’t explain all the other forms of magic that are practiced today. In that sense it might be seen as misleading, but I think that it is a useful but incomplete and overly generalized definition of magic.

If we look at the popular definition of magic as found in any dictionary, we come up with the following definitions. This, of course, is how magic is defined by popular consensus despite all of the years that it has been developed, refined and brought into the 21st century by practitioners and social scientists.

“The use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces. An extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source. Incantations or enchantments. The art of producing illusions by sleight of hand.”

Popular consensus about magic requires a belief in the supernatural and that magical power is a supernatural force. Other popular definitions discuss engaging or conjuring of spirits and forcing them to produce supernatural effects and achieve material objectives through their intervention. In fact, in the previous age, before the European Enlightenment, human beings were thought to have no inherent powers and that it was only through the artifice of angels, demons or neutral spirits could a human being cause seemingly miraculous changes in the material world. Also, the public sees little difference between ritual or ceremonial magic and prestidigitation. They are all one thing, and if a person fails to believe in the supernatural, then the whole definition falls completely apart. It becomes, without this belief in the supernatural, a fraudulent activity, trickery and even criminal deceit. 

The 19th century produced two individuals who changed the perception of magic in the various occult communities, those who had adhered to various beliefs from the previous age and were backed by the philosophy of late antiquity, which was neoplatonism. This was also the century when much of the Eastern systems of religious philosophy and metaphysics became available, through the efforts of various intellectuals and organizations such as the Theosophical Society, Spiritism, and various quasy Masonic organizations, such as the Golden Dawn. One of the chief proponents of magic in the 19th century was Eliphas Levi, from whom the Golden Dawn got its definition of magic, and where MacGregor Mathers made it into an accessible practice. Levi proposed a down-to-earth definition of what magic was, and detached it from the belief in the supernatural and the theatrics of popular stage magic. Here is how Levi defined magic.

“The three chief components of Levi's magical thesis were: Astral Light, the Will and the Imagination. Levi defined the Astral Light as a blind, amoral, universal force that sweeps all before it in a perpetual and restless search for equilibrium.”

 Levi came up with this idea about the Astral Light from the writings of Carl Reichenbach, who conjectured that there was what he called an “odic” force in the universe, which was a hypothetical vital energy or life force believed to exist by many in the mid-19th century. Reichenbach himself was strongly influenced by the writings of Mesmer about animal magnetism. The idea of the existence of the Astral Light was picked up the Theosophical Society since it melded well with Eastern philosophies concerning the life-force or prana. 

While Levi and the Golden Dawn brought the practice of magic from out of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance into the 19th century, the definitions that they used still seemed very nebulous and not very factual. While eliminating the idea of the supernatural was a good step in the right direction, it seemed that adding forms of metaphysics made the definition more confusing. However, when Crowley wrote up his definitions of magic there had not yet been anything succinct or definitive to say about how magic was actually defined. Still, it was an evolving process that continues to this day, and Crowley’s definition was just a step in that process. It is easy to criticize his definition and also to remark that it could easily lead one astray as it could help define what magic is and how it functions. Still, it is also important to see Crowley’s definition from the perspective of the context of the time in which it was presented.

Anthropologists, psychologists and sociologists spent a great deal of time from the 19th century and well into the 20th century studying and remarking on the phenomenon of the practice of magic in so-called primitive societies. While they accepted the idea that magic was deficient and based on superstition, they attempted to explain how these less enlightened societies believed about themselves, their world and how magic fit into that world. Frazer was the first to write volumes on the topic, attempting to universalize the idea of magic and to define its different component beliefs, and many others followed suit, such as Malinowski , Freud, and then later Jung, Marcel Mauss, and  Daniel Lawrence O'Keefe. 

O’Keefe was interesting because he speculated that magic was the expropriation of religious rites and ceremonies from public and state religions for the selfish purpose of achieving personal gain. He flipped the narrative that Frazer had developed (and Crowley accepted) that magic was the precursor to science. I felt that O’Keefe was quite correct for certain forms of magic as practiced in Europe from antiquity through the Renaissance. However, he did not take into account primitive forms of magic and shamanism that were the bedrock of what early societies defined as magic and did not depend on the expropriation of religious practices.

All of these various academic perspectives about magic were from an etic or external perspective, and they were not emic, or from the standpoint of the magical practitioner. They also did not define either how magic worked or what was happening in nature to allow it to function. I believe that only practitioners can define magic from the inside as long as they don’t seek to postulate some kind of unknown electromagnetic force as its underlying physical basis.

Jung brought up the idea of synchronicity and the powers of cultural and religious symbolism as archetypes of psychic transformation, and Campbell and Eliade discussed the powers and impact of cultural myths and their language that underlie the psychology of the individual and the societies at large. Magic also seems to employ a combination of imagination and metaphor that is a lot like what children do when the play pretend. Eastern religious philosophy talks about a vital force called prana, and this force is integral to life, and especially conscious life. It also functions as a metaphor that proposes that everything is connected to everything else, and that through this web of union, one individual may effect many individuals.

All of these theories seem to saying that the consciousness of the individual and the collective consciousness of the societies that they live in have a great and powerful influence on the social environment and its material basis in the world. They also seem to imply that the imagination as unfettered creativity, combined with the power of symbols and myths can make a phenomenon like magic part of the conscious equation. It can also produce great literature, art, poetry, theater, music, and the various powerful sentiments of human existence. It is the driver for religion and its individual exponent, mysticism. Within this perspective is what we would define as Spirit, and all the collective attributes of the religious and mystical phenomena of Deities, devils, angels, demons, nature spirits, mythical creatures, legendary heros and heroines, ghosts of our ancestors, and the hosts of what had once been defined as supernatural, now defined as the products of the greater mind of humanity. While Carl Sagon despaired over the continued human proclivity for what he defined as superstition, I see it as an integral part of the phenomena of human consciousness.

Science allows us to be rational and empirical when approaching the physical phenomena of the material world, and it has created mathematics, technology, medicine, chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, engineering and the overall standards for objectivity. Yet science cannot explain the phenomenon of consciousness itself, and it cannot abrogate the necessary human tendency to sentimentalize, imagine, feel through emotions, and express oneself through passion. There is still a place for the Arts in our world, and may the Gods save us if we ever lose that important aspect of being human.

So, based on all of these ideas and theories, how do we define magic from an emic perspective? I will attempt to define magic here, but of course, mine is not the last word.

There are seven basic models of magic, and each explains part of the phenomenon of magic. There is the spirit model, the energy model, the psychological model, the stocastic model, the temporal model, the information model, and the metaphysical or theurgic model. What all of these models have in common is the peculiarity of consciousness. They represent different definitions and viewpoints on the phenomenon of magic, but they also fail to define it from a unified perspective. We can merge them into a single perspective that is relevant to the modern world, since previous ages had very different cultural foundations through which magic typically defined.

Magic is a psychological process that occurs in the mind and has no actual physical representation in the material world, except, perhaps, from the perspective of neurology. It relies on rare altered states of consciousness as its foundation, and it utilizes transformative symbols, religious attributes and belief systems woven into rituals and ceremonies and directed by symbolic tools and artifacts. It can be employed in a singular manner with a single objective, whether material or conceptual. It can also be employed to enhance, instruct, inspire, illuminate, and ultimately, cause its practitioners to ascend into a state of permanent enlightenment and union with the monistic exemplar of consciousness itself. It proposes a form of rapid and contagious spiritual evolution that can be achieved in a single lifetime, although it typically attracts those who initially seek material power over their lives and circumstances. 

Magic is protean in its form and function because all models and perspectives can be shown to be correct in some manner, including that magic doesn’t even exist. It can be perceived differently by different people, and everyone who practices magic sustains their belief in it through their perception of its efficacy. There are very few rules that govern magic, and often what breaks the rules is more effective than what complies with them. It is also a phenomenon that seems to have a separate conscious volition and character, and it often behaves as if it were an entity instead of a phenomenon of individual human consciousness. 

Magic is also the process whereby individuals build meaning, significance and a sense of purpose or destiny onto their life’s path, pulling them out of the meaninglessness of their trivial secular society, the happenstance of the material world and the seemingly autonomous universe at large. Modern magic is as important to our post modern world as organized religion was to the pre-modern and modern ages. Yet it remains to be seen if this varied process can meet or exceed the objectives of a human system of conscious evolution as religion had functioned in the past.

Frater Barrabbas

Why the Energy Model of Magic is Important

 

Since the grimoire-only crowd and their ritual tech has become quite popular, they have espoused a spirit-only model of magic. That approach has given short shrift to a perfectly acceptable, and I might add, useful model of magic, which is a major part of a number of different, albeit, modern systems of magic. While it is true that the learned and literate of the previous age believed that humanity lacked any kind of personal power to effect the world around them, we now know that this is no longer the case. Human beings have a greater potential to effect the world around them, and they also have an innate magical power or energy to be able to do so. These ideas about human energy have come from Eastern metaphysical traditions, but there is evidence that the philosophers of antiquity believed in the potential for humans to generate and project power or energy if suitably trained.

You might consider that whether one follows the spirit-only model or the energy model, the psychology model, or the stochastic chaos model, or the information model that it doesn’t really make much difference in the magic that is deployed. Additionally, most modern systems of magic employ more than one model simultaneously than only electing to use one model in isolation. Yet the question remains about why the energy model of magic is so important in the kinds of ritual tech that I employ? What do these techniques give to the magic that I perform?

First of all, the energy model of magic is tied to the breath and movement of the operator. The regulation of breath appears to alter the states of consciousness that one assumes, and movement brings to the ritual bodily projected energy, both thermal and bio-electric. These physical energy types are very minute, although the thermal energy of a crowd of people can be significant in an enclosed space. However, it is the altered state of consciousness combined with physical movement that makes magical energies perceptible to the magical operator. Add to that mixture of altered conscious mental state and bodily exertions the various occult symbology and tight ritual structures and you will get a potent output of energy that is tangible and perceptible. By itself, the energy model can promote an empowered will-base magical working that can and does have some limited success in bending the probabilities for an expected outcome. Combined with other models of magic and this methodology becomes a very potent and successful tool in adding magical power to working and making spirit workings assume a more tangible manifestation.

For instance, my ritual tech for projecting an elemental power toward a given objective uses the energy model to create a pentagram-based octagonal elemental vortex, along with invoking an elemental based spirit, sealed with a sigil symbolizing my objective. That combination of energy, spirit and information models of magic, with an implied psychology model (developing specific mind-states along with the spiritual intelligence of the Elemental Spirit) produces a ritual tech that can bend probabilities much readily than the energy model alone.

I also perform my workings under a godhead assumption and in alignment to my personal deity, thereby making the working into a form of theurgy. The octagon structure gives a structure to the generated energies, and the inward and outward spirals compress and release the imprinted energy field that is imprinted by the sigil and guided by the Elemental Spirit. This represents succinctly and all-model approach to performing a simple magical effect on an outward material condition. The more elaborate ritual tech that I employ uses even more complex ritual structures and layers them within the same working area of the eight-node magic circle. The greater energy concentration will produce materializations, especially if more exalted spirits are involved, such as Angels or Demons. In fact, combining these models into a single working makes it more effective and the objectives, whether material or spiritual,  more likely to be achieved.

As you can see, a multi-model magical approach that uses an advanced energy model of magic is much more effective and produces a greater range phenomena than if a magician were to adhere to just one single model, such as the spirit-only model used in traditional grimoire magic. I think that this single model approach to magic is very limited and far less effective. For the spirit-only model it relies on a mind-set and belief system that is more relevant to the 16th century than our post-modern times. This is particularly true for European and American systems of magic and the underlying modern metaphysics that is used in its foundation. The energy, psychological and informational models of magic are more modern by far, but they also have a historical provenance that spans other cultures and times.

What I have found is using the advanced energy model of magic in all of my ritual workings and ordeal makes these processes more intense, tangible and objective to co-workers. They manifest energies that can be felt and experienced even by those who have little experience with magic. A vortex used in a temple space, even when sealed, will continue to resonate on some level and be felt by others who might enter the temple where such magic has been performed. It gives greater emphasis to all magical operations and makes visual apprehension of the magic possible. I have trained myself to see the lines of force when they are drawn, including magical devices, gateways, pylons, vortices and energy compression spirals and energy exteriorization spirals. This allows me to perceive and experience the magical phenomena as it is being generated. I cannot conceive of a better way to gauge a magical operation than to have this ability to sense and perceive it, and the advanced energy model makes this all possible.

Want to know more about the advanced energy model in magic and how to employ it in your own magical workings? My book “Elemental Powers for Witches” is an excellent book that explains the energy model, its historical precedence, but more importantly, how to work this kind of magic and produce tangible results. It even discusses how to learn to see and sense this kind of magical power, and how it can be integrated into an evocation to make the spirit more perceptible and objective. I cannot recommend this book more emphatically then to state that the advanced energy ritual tech is what I have used in all of my advanced ritual workings. If you want to make such future books of mine such as “Liber Nephilim” and “Abramelin Lunar Ordeal” (available in 2024) accessible, then the book “Elemental Powers for Witches” is a critically important source to read and study.

Frater Barrabbas

Will-Based Magic vs Theurgy

 

 

Goddess of Witchcraft

A while back I attended a class presented by Taylor Elwood, who has been a mentor and friend to me for many years. He was there to help me in the first stage of my literary pursuits. Taylor is also an amazingly brilliant and creative man, and has many books and other media available for those who might be interested in a very fresh and modern approach to magic. We do have in common a disdain for traditionalists and grimoire purists, and we approach magic in a creative and experimental manner. Anyway, in his class, Taylor said that will-based magic has many limitations, and by itself, can often fail more often than succeed. He discussed his own history to emphasize his point that human-centric magic is not the optimal approach to working magic. I heartily agree with this perspective, and I consider it one of the rules of magic.

However, after pondering his words, I was unable to find a time in my life except when I was a teenager just starting out in magic where this kind of rule reduced my expected outcome for any and all magic that I worked. The only successful workings that I managed to perform were with the aid and alignment to my personal Goddess, whom I saw as the Goddess of Witchcraft. I also suspect that beginners fail more often than succeed simply because they are learning about what works for them, and what doesn’t work. It is a continual sorting process that shapes all magical development, from the beginning and throughout one’s magical career.

Still, once I was initiated into Witchcraft proper back in 1976, it profoundly changed both the scope and the rate of success of my magic. It was no longer a matter of hit or miss for me, but it became apparent to me that knowing where to apply my magic and exactly when, and ensuring that I had multiple plans and did the mundane work, was I was able to achieve whatever I set out to do. The only thing that evaded me was finding a mate, but for that situation I had a profound blockage and an inability to clearly see what was internally blocking me. The spirits that I had engaged with over time continually told me what the problem was and how to resolve it, but I was unable to really comprehend and take action to make myself successful in that pursuit as well. Thus, most of my magical workings were successful except in the matter of love, and I have not had any situation where I experienced a complete failure or breakdown regarding my magic and its outcome. (Ultimately, even that issue was resolved over time.)

Listening to Taylor’s short biography and how he had to make a major paradigm shift in his magical thinking, thereby realigning his magical work to ensure a more successful outcome was fascinating, and the contrast between our two paths couldn’t be more stark. However, what Taylor talked about is something that other magicians have related during all too brief moments of personal revelation. If you are a magician, you will likely talk about your successes and achievements and omit any discussion about your failures, and for anyone practicing magic, the failures will outnumber the successes, especially in the beginning. It would appear the Thelemic creed that our true will is indomitable is an erroneous assumption, particularly if we forget that our supposed True Will might be something that is beyond or even contrary to our personal ambitions at the moment. It would seem that our True Will is more bound to our higher selves than to our petty egos. At any rate, the True Will is a misnomer that I don’t consider in any of my magical workings, as we shall see.

All of these thoughts and considerations had me pondering, since I saw a contrast between the experiences and history of what Taylor underwent and what I have experienced. What is the difference between our two paths that might make a difference between what we both experienced over the years? Additionally, we will need to differentiate between the kinds of the magic where the will would play a greater part in magical workings, and where either spirits or planetary archetypes play a greater role. Depending on the type of magic worked, the role of the magician’s will is quite different, so it cannot be either a consideration nor a stumbling block for some kinds of magic. There is also a specific kind of magic where the individual will plays no part at all, but we will get to that consideration in this discussion as well.

If I were to choose forms of magic where the magician’s will plays a critical role then I would pick the energy and information models of magic. Magical energy needs to be visualized in some manner so that it can be generated, but essentially breath and bodily movement are the drivers for that kind of magic. What is required of the magician is where they will imprint the collected and compressed energy field with their desire and then exteriorize it. Information model forms of magic are where symbols and language are manipulated, but it is the will that projects and sets the magical objective in motion. These two models rely heavily on the use of the magician’s will to set the outcome.

Additionally, the magician must also perform various mundane steps to ensure that the outcome is inescapably set, or at least as much as possible. What I have found is that the magician must also work divination both before and after the working to make certain that they have not unwittingly erected any blockages or counter aspirations that might stop or degrade the outcome. As you can see, a will-based magical operation, in order to have a chance of success, must be reduced down to the simplest expression and thoroughly examined to determine that it is clear of any other internal or external impediments or distractions. Any other derivation may prove to be fatal to the outcome of a magical working. What that means is that a will-based working must focus on a single objective at a time so that the energy or manipulated symbols or sigils will apply a more concentrated  magical effect to the overall desired outcome. This is why complex or multiple outcome magical objectives will likely fail to produce results because the energy is dispersed or the symbology is too multifaceted and ambiguous.

The spirit model of magic is not as affected by the will of the magician to set the magical objective of a working. The magician’s will is focused on the task of successfully performing the evocation, and constraining and binding the spirit. If that process is successful, then the outcome will more likely be a success than a failure. However, there are other factors that make this kind of working fraught with failure, and that revolves around the nature and quality of the spirit and the relationship between the spirit and the human operator. Questions that need to be answered in this regard are whether the spirit is the proper agent and has the capability to meet the magician’s objective, and whether the spirit is amendable to doing the work for the magician. Is their relationship on a solid and cooperative foundation? As you can see, there are quite a number of variables involved, so even successfully conjuring a spirit will not necessarily mean that the magical objective will be fulfilled.

Perhaps the least will-based kind of magic is talismanic magic. Generating a talismanic field and charging a metallic talisman artifact during an auspicious moment, not to mention the preparations, research and development needed, requires a level of discipline and consistency that a honed and empowered will can greatly ensure a successful completion. A talisman is where the magician’s objective coincides with the astrological auspices and the combination of planetary archetype and element foundation to forge a charged artifact that will send out its magic continuously as long as the magician keeps a periodic conscious connection with it. A talisman can have its target altered but not its basic qualities, and it can be given to a client to aid and assist them. It is quite versatile, however, it is completely dependent on the combination of the talismanic field, the auspices active at the time of its creation, and the kind or quality of change that it can promote. Some talismanic fields are fast acting but limited in the duration or depth of the change, and others are slow but produce long-lasting changes. The greatest variables are to be found in the natal chart of the operator, since generating a talismanic field cannot overcome aspects and attributes found in the baseline of one’s personality, as determined by the natal chart. Overall, talismanic magic is least reliant on the magician’s will, but it has other, more complex, considerations that must be tackled to ensure success.

That leaves us with few other magical methodologies to consider, but one that has dominated my magical life is the question of the role that Deities, the Higher Self and one’s initiatory “process” plays in the working of magic. Since I was initiated a many years in the past, nearly 50 years ago, I have operated as a Witch under the alignment and in an intimate association with the Deities of my craft, most specifically, the Goddess of Witchcraft. However I have view her, she has been with me since even before I was initiated, but became dominant when I was initiated. That means that every magical working that I have performed since I was initiated was through and within her. She has been my most powerful authority, guide, teacher, law-giver, arbiter, and my principal intercession between the world of spirit and myself.

Additionally, there is my Higher Self, or the God Within, that I have invoked numerous times through the use of variations of the Bornless or Headless One Rite. Whenever I work magic, I do it under the godhead assumption of my internal Deity, so my magical workings are empowered by this singular connection. Since I was initiated many years ago, I have discovered that there is an interactive magical “process” that has been strategically engaged with me while I have endured the fortunes and failures of my mundane and magical life. That initiatory process has ensured that my life’s path has help and assistance so that I will ultimately achieve my overall purpose and directive in life. Sometimes that direction is a mystery to me, other times it is briefly revealed to me in a breath-taking manner. I have faith that my life’s path will not lead to disaster and that there is always a path that can help me mitigate any crisis that I have encountered.  The combination of my Higher Self God-Within and my initiatory process has kept me from encountering a disaster or experiencing complete failure.

How I would define this particular magical and spiritual path that I am progressing through is that it is based on theurgy, or God Work. I am never performing any kind of magic or liturgy without the engagement or intercession of my Deity, both within me and without me. While I may desire, seek and attempt to will something, my work will be for nought unless the Deity is brought into the working. Actually, I would never perform any working without that engagement and connection since it is part of my magical practice. As a Witch practicing theurgy, what I personally will in regards to magic has to be in alignment with my Deity or I won’t make the attempt. I determine the will of the Gods through a more sacred and formal practice of divination, where they are involved in the revelation of what is or what will be. I am also operating in my daily life with an array of talismanic artifacts with all 28 of the Talismanic Elementals actively set, so I can direct magical energy to given direction whenever I might need it. While I am not wealthy, I am comfortably well-off, and so far, my life has qualities that lend to my subjective definition as being ‘charmed.”

So, it would seem that of all of the systems of the magic, theurgy has very little will-based attributes, since the operator has, for the most part, surrendered themselves to the will of the Deity. There is no need to strictly control everything (and everyone), and there is a still-point when my mind and the Deity merge together briefly at the height of a godhead assumption. There is also the requirement for periodic and regular liturgical practices that ensure I am always engaged, aligned and connected to the Deity. This is not a process where the magic is performed once with the optimistic hope that it will produce the desired results. Like talismanic magic, it is a cyclic, periodic and continual process, and it fully objectifies the inward godhead connection into the outer material world. That is the premise of God Work, and it is a methodology that I have used for nearly my entire magical career. I am a Witch, ritual magician, and my magic is theurgic in nature. Since the Deity is involved in this work, the only will that is present is the will of that godhead, both within me and without me. My own will is merely aligned to that greater will, and my magic has been much more successful because of it.

I don’t know a lot about Taylor’s biography, or how other magicians have approached this issue, but I do know that the will of the individual has some severe limitations in regards to will-based magic. Perhaps initiation into a pagan magical tradition might help overcome that limitation, or individuals can learn to modify their approach, just as Taylor has done to create an entirely new paradigm for their magical work. However, I do know that my petty will was sacrificed to the Goddess decades ago, and whenever I have attempted to unwisely to resurrect and wield it, whatever I think I am doing has amounted to a lot of nothing. Fighting against the Gods when you are supposed to be their arbiter in this world is a fruitless exercise, and one that court trouble and spiritual disharmony. Divination is the key to knowing the Will of the Gods; it is to that process of divination and what it reveals to me that I adopt as my unerring directions and guidance in life. Of course, I also talk to the Gods and they talk back, but that is another topic for another time.

Frater Barrabbas

Transcendentalism vs Transcendental States of Consciousness

I have been reading about a kind of back-and-forth argument between magicians about the usefulness of Platonism and the Qabalah, the fact that Neoplatonic models espouse a transcendental reality that ultimately devalues the material world, and that a practical approach to magic should use the more archaic Shamanic, immanent world view. I find that I agree somewhat with both sides, since I can see where a transcendental perspective is useful as well as an immanent one. They look at spiritual reality from two different points of view, but their source is one and the same. I believe that religions in the west tend to emphasize the transcendental aspects of deity and reality over the immanent, even though the foundation of Christianity has the Deity defined with both attributes. It is a discussion that has no real resolution, and from a completely practical perspective, it belies the fact that the practice of magic generally produces transcendental states of consciousness.

I have never had much of head for either philosophy or higher mathematics, but practical logic and critical thinking skills were something that I learned early on, mostly by making mistakes and blundering my way through life. A friend of mine likened this argument to a confusion between ontology and epistemology, which is to say it is an argument between the nature of the universe as it really is, which none can fully know, and as it is perceived by all of us. We all have our opinions, but they are based on what we have experienced and what we know, individually and also collectively. From a purely practical perspective, this argument is hollow and fairly meaningless. Models, paradigms, constructs, and analogues all suffer from the limitations that they use analogy to describe something that is beyond description - what is seen and understood by the Eye of Spirit vs. the Eye of the Mind. The only thing that I think is essential is to understand that the analogy is not the thing that it describes. Models are useful tools, but they really don’t share in the numen of the thing represented unless we load them with mythic and mystic qualities. Doing that deviates from the usefulness of the model, and human nature being what it is, we are often mistaking the operational tool for the reality it represents.

My rule of thumb is to use whatever model works, but don’t over use them. Don’t try to extend a model to be universal, since it will then fail as a useful tool. When models or tools fail to explain something that you have experienced then it is time to either adapt another model or to create one based wholly on that experience. It is the nature of the human creature to name things, and to make meaning and connect things into a context when there is none. I see this as a way of enrichening the experience and significance of one’s reality, but it can also be a way of fictionalizing whole areas of our lives. Sometimes it is important to simply see something without any kind of narrative. I am beginning to discover that having that ability is the best approach.

The discussion of different models or perspectives at work in the world of the magician as a form of ontology seems to miss the whole nature of magic itself in that it produces paranormal experiences and generates transcendental states of consciousness. This seems to be true no matter what kind of magic is performed, whether low or high magick. In some ways this propensity for paranormal states of consciousness may be what attracts some folk into either learning to practice this art themselves or to hire someone who can do this for them. The field of consciousness of magic is full of paranormal phenomena and varying degrees of transcendental states of consciousness. Mystical and religious practices appear to produce the same kinds of phenomena and states of consciousness, and perhaps this is the basis of the religious and philosophical perspective on transcendentalism. Meditation and religious rites, or magic, produces these states in abundance, so therefore the spiritual world and the nature of deity itself must be transcendental, further postulating that these states are quite beyond all material reality.

As a ‘nuts and bolts’ kind of practical magician, I wonder if this is a case where a model or a constructive paradigm was used beyond its scope of usefulness, since in order to believe it is to reject the whole aspect of spirit and deity that is immanent, or that is within each and everyone of us. However, I have found that the transcendental states that I have experienced in magic has led me to see the nature of deity and spirit both within and all around me. It is to say that my dealings with spirit and magic have taught me that an exclusive adherence to either immanent or transcendent definitions of reality is too limiting. The true reality is somewhere in between or something altogether different, and it defies a neat model or convenient philosophy to explain it. Here again approaching this phenomena with an open and unbiased mind is the best approach.

Use what is useful, but don’t overuse it. Don’t rely too much on one theory in exclusion to others. Be open to contradictory evidence, and don’t be afraid to be wrong about practically everything at some point or another. Practice the magic and experience it fully, and be mindful of what is really going on inside you. Question everything you read, hear or experience. Base your opinions on the results of a thoughtful analysis of your actual experiences instead of what you have read or learned from others.

Frater Barrabbas